conveniently or inconveniently, they held it until after the 2004 election when president bush was reelected. "the times" on that story for a year is why edward snowden took his rev liegss further this year to "the guardian" in britain. today, the editor of "the guardian" has only published about 1% of what edward snowden gave them. is that decision not to publish 99% an issue of bravery, intimidati intimidation? is that judgment? they are deciding, in effect, what we get to know about what our government does based on their judgment of what counts as news. and their judgment conceivably of what harm they could cause by releasing to the public what they as a news organization are privileged to know that the rest of us to do. it is a very, very uncomfortable thing. it is part of why the job of a free and responsible press is a hard thing, a hard job, hard to do well. you want the people that do it to be worthy of the responsibility they have. tomorrow morning in a law officer in dan bury, connecticut. phone calls will be made available to the phone calls made the morning of the sandy hook sho